the power of the playbook

Here’s some engineer bashing from Strong Towns, this time accusing us of being serial killers of children:

  • The engineering profession is so worried about liability if they vary from any highway design guideline, regardless of how ridiculous they are. Someone needs to sue these engineers for gross negligence and turn that entire liability equation around. It’s way past time.
  • Professional engineers here and elsewhere use “forgiving design” principles in urban areas where they do not apply. They systematically forgive the mistakes of drivers who stray from their lane or go off the roadway by designing systems where these common mistakes are anticipated and compensated for. They systematically show indifference to the easily anticipated mistakes of non-drivers. A kid playing in their yard chases a stray ball out into the street and gets run down. To the engineer, this is a non-foreseeable, non-preventable accident. For everyone else, we understand that cities are more than cars – they include people doing all kinds of complex things – and forgiving the common mistakes of ALL people is what a humane, decent professional does.
  • Professional engineers claim that they cannot alter human behavior with their street designs. A highway lane width is 13 feet just the same as your local street lane width. There is often no appreciable difference in the cross section of a highway and a local street except for the posted speed limit, which is up to the police to enforce. (I wrote about this years ago.) Despite this, the engineers in this situation – knowing there was an obvious problem – as well as many others in similar situations, put their brains to work to come up with all kinds of ways to attempt to alter human behavior, but only for those humans outside of their automobiles.

This language is a little dramatic but the argument is justified. The field of engineering, and the education of engineers, is not supposed to be just about following design guidelines unquestioningly. It is supposed to be about understanding systems well enough to modify them and solve problems. But civil engineers are under a lot of economic pressure – we tend to be paid either by cash-strapped public agencies or by private land development interests engaged in ruthless competition. Under these conditions, following an established playbook is often the lowest stress, lowest risk, and most efficient way to get a job done.

There is a flip side to this though – the keepers of those playbooks have enormous power. Curating a collection of standard details and technical specifications doesn’t sound like a very glamorous job, but actually it is a very important one. If people are blindly following your playbook, you have a lot of responsibility – to use overly dramatic terms, you can either be the savior or the mass murderer of the children. You have the power to mainstream best practices and innovations from elsewhere. Then if there are some engineers downstream who choose not to think or are simply under too much pressure to think, they will blindly implement the right practices. So these are very important jobs, and they need to be filled with people who are very well educated in system thinking, are ethical, and are intellectually curious about what is going on outside their little corner of the world. A certain amount of experimentation needs to be done outside the playbook, and the playbook itself needs to be constantly challenged and revised as new and better approaches become available.

The Year of the Flood

I finally got around to reading The Year of the Flood, the second book in Margaret Atwood’s MaddAdam trilogy. And I liked it. I remember not loving the first book, Oryx and Crake. Sometimes whether or not you love a book depends on where you are and what you are doing when you read it. Often, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I read a book I loved. And I don’t remember where I was when I read Oryx and Crake, which is a telling sign. However, I remember exactly when I read The Space Merchants by Frederik Pohl – 2009. And I remember thinking that Margaret Atwood lifted themes directly out of that book, only didn’t use them quite as well, so I guess I read Oryx and Crake after that. And I remember being annoyed that Atwood would not admit that the book was a work of science fiction, and that serious people were reading and positively reviewing the book who thought they were too serious for science fiction. Well, I have news – it was science fiction all along, and not only that, it’s cyberpunk. Well, I’ve decided to forgive all this. I can give her the benefit of the doubt, or else I can decide that she was paying homage to an earlier science fiction master and give her credit for that. As I’ve gotten more into science fiction, I’ve seen that done several times, obviously on purpose, and it seems to be acceptable where it might not be acceptable in another genre. So, I’ve decided since then that both books are pretty good after all, and I plan to read the third book.

In The Year of the Flood, there are themes that seem like they are taken right out of The Hunger Games. I found this interview online where Atwood says she has never heard of The Hunger Games, and forgives the author of The Hunger Games for taking her idea.

Have you had a chance to read or see The Hunger Games? The games are designed for the districts to pay back the Capitol for a past rebellion, via the lives of their children, like the heroine Katniss Everdeen. It seems to be inspired in part by elements of The Handmaid’s Tale, Oryx and Crake, and Year of the Flood, especially in terms of the structure of postapocalyptic society, how the disenfranchised are “chosen” for an honor that is anything but …
In kind of a game show? So, basically it’s Painball from Year of the Flood in which people are pitted against other people so other people can watch it on TV? And the origin of that of course is paintball, which is a real thing! It’s always nice to have people see the beauty of one’s ideas. I’m flattered. [Chuckles.] It sounds interesting. Some of these things go way back, mythologically. How did she end up in this position?

Because there’s a lottery, and her sister was chosen, and so she volunteers to take her place.
Shirley Jackson! How old are they?

Between the ages of 11 and 18.
Theseus and the Minotaur! Love it. And so they put these people in a very large area? It’s Painball. Same idea. If you survive, will they let you out?

I don’t want to spoil it too much for you.
That’s okay — I can guess. I haven’t written my third one yet, so whatever’s in it can’t be used in The Hunger Games.

The original Hunger Games novel was released in 2008, and The Year of the Flood in 2009. So it’s plausible that it was a coincidence and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt again. Anyway, maybe she’s right and there are only a certain number of themes and plots out there, and good fiction is all about how you apply them to your characters and your time.

The MaddAdam books present a near-future dystopian society in a very entertaining way, and I was entertained by that. I don’t think I would be giving away too much if I told you there is a collapse of industrialized, urbanized civilization in this story. You find that out in the first few pages of the first book. Then the rest of the story is really about who, how, and why that happened. The first book focuses more on consumer society and dangerous technology in the hands of amoral – in fact immoral – private corporations, while the second mixes that with a bit of climate change, habitat and species loss.

You find out pretty early what actually caused the collapse, but the more interesting part to me, which Margaret hints at but ultimately leaves to our imaginations, is how the society got to the point it was at before the crash. Any sort of representative government seems to be completely absent, but you don’t get the sense that the corporations muscled it aside through any sort of armed means. Maybe they simply starved it of resources to the point where it gave up. The entire society is designed to accumulate wealth and power at the top, but it is a bit of a puzzle how that works. The corporations themselves create new value through their research into the new technologies, but then they have to make the whole society want to buy those things from them. They have to let just enough wealth trickle down to enough people so they can spend the wealth and let it be gathered back up. So there must be a very, very large number of relatively poor people working hard to support the elite few, without realizing they are doing that. I say relatively poor because they can’t be so poor they decide to drop out of the consumer system entirely (as a few people do, which is the focus of the second book.) They can’t realize how poor they are, and they have to have a little bit of income that they can spend on all the things the corporations provide, which is everything – food, shelter, clothing, drugs, even access to reproduction. They have to believe in money, and want to accumulate money, but they have to want the products and services of the corporations so much that they never actually accumulate much money but spend it all. Of course, the corporations are exploiting not just all these people but the natural environment, so at some point that is either going to catch up to them, unless there is an accident or deliberate act to help the process along first…

robots robots robots!

Yes, there’s a robot bartender now.

No word on whether this is a bar where everybody knows your name. I suspect not. Here’s a much longer academic study on which occupations are likely to be most affected by computerization/automation in coming decades.

According to our estimates around 47 percent of total US employment is in the high risk category. We refer to these as jobs at risk – i.e. jobs we expect could be automated relatively soon, perhaps over the next decade or two. Our model predicts that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are at risk. These findings are consistent with recent technological developments documented in the literature. More surprisingly, we find that a substantial share of employment in service occupations,where most US job growth has occurred over the past decades (Autor and Dorn, 2013), are highly susceptible to computerisation. Additional support for this finding is provided by the recent growth in the market for service robots (MGI, 2013) and the gradually diminishment of the comparative advantage of human labour in tasks involving mobility and dexterity (Robotics-VO, 2013).

The paper has a detailed appendix where you can look up your specific occupation if you are so inclined. In also has a detailed lesson on the history of technology and labor markets, if you are inclined to read that.

Finally, the Pentagon is also worried about falling behind the curve on automation:

Hagel and DOD officials have been discussing the so-called third offset strategy for months without giving up any specifics as to how they intend to achieve offset innovation. In his speech, Hagel provided a small glimpse into the fields that will attract special Defense Department attention as part of the strategy: “robotics, autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, and advanced manufacturing, including 3-D printing.”

Geoff Lawton

Here’s a Youtube play list of 200 videos with Geoff Lawton the Permaculture guy. I’ve embedded just one below.

Permaculture is great – it’s about sustainable agriculture and sustainable living in the dictionary sense of sustainability – entwined ecosystems and human settlements that can work together and persist for the long term. On a more practical level, it’s about farms and gardens that function as self-sustaining ecosystems, feeding people with very low inputs of energy and effort. The only possible criticism of it might be that perhaps its scientific core could be shored up a bit. But it really is a system-based ecological design philosophy that could be incorporated into a lot of mainstream programs, from small-scale farming to large-scale agribusiness to urban parks and trees.

automated aggregation of scientific literature

I am intrigued by this example from Stanford of computerized review and synthesis of scientific literature:

Over the last few years, we have built applications for both broad domains that read the Web and for specific domains like paleobiology. In collaboration with Shanan Peters (PaleobioDB), we built a system that reads documents with higher accuracy and from larger corpora than expert human volunteers. We find this very exciting as it demonstrates that trained systems may have the ability to change the way science is conducted.

In a number of research papers we demonstrated the power of DeepDive on NMR data and financial, oil, and gas documents. For example, we showed that DeepDive can understand tabular data. We are using DeepDive to support our own research, exploring how knowledge can be used to build the next generation of data processing systems.

Examples of DeepDive applications include:

  • PaleoDeepDive – A knowledge base for Paleobiologists
  • GeoDeepDive – Extracting dark data from geology journal articles
  • Wisci – Enriching Wikipedia with structured data

The complete code for these examples is available with DeepDive.

Let’s just say an organization is trying to be more innovative. First it needs to understand where its standard operating procedures are in relation to the leading edge. To do that, it needs to understand where the leading edge is. That means research, which can be very tedious, and time consuming. It means the organization is paying people to spend time reviewing large amounts of information, some or even most of which will not turn out to be useful. So a change in mindset is often necessary. But tools that could jump start the process and provide short cuts would be great.

This is my own developing theory of how an organization can become more innovative: First, figure out where the leading edge is. Second, figure out how far the various parts of your organization are from the leading edge. Third, figure out how you are going to bring a critical mass of your organization up to the leading edge – this is as much a human resource problem as an innovation problem. Fourth, then and only then, you are ready to try to advance the leading edge. I think a lot of organizations have a few people that do #1, but then they skip right to #4. Then that small group is way outside the leading edge while the bulk of the organization is nowhere near it. That’s not a recipe for success.

November 2014 in Review

At the end of October, my Hope for the Future Index stood at -2.  I’ll give November posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-6):

  • There is mounting evidence that the world economy is slowing, financial corporations are still engaged in all sorts of dirty tricks, and overall investment may be dropping. Financial authorities are trying to respond through financial means, but the connections are not being made to the right kinds of investments in infrastructure, skills, and protection of natural capital that would set the stage for long-term sustainable growth in the future. (-2)
  • Public apathy over climate change in the U.S. may have been manufactured by a cynical, immoral corporate disinformation campaign over climate change taken right out of the tobacco companies’ playbook. It’s true that the tobacco companies ultimately were called to account, but not until millions of lives were lost. Will it be billions this time? (-2)
  • Glenn Beck has gone even further off his rocker, producing a video suggesting the U.N. is going to ration food and burn old people alive while playing vaguely middle eastern music. One negative point because some people out there might not laugh. (-1)
  • The new IPCC report predicts generally negative effects of climate change on crops and fisheries. The good news is it doesn’t seem to predict catastrophic collapse, but we need to remember that the food supply needs to grow substantially in the coming decades, not just hold steady, so any headwinds making that more difficult are potentially threatening. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+6):

  • A lot is known about how to grow healthy trees in the most urbanized environments. But only a few cities really take advantage of this readily available knowledge. (+0)
  • As manufacturing becomes increasingly high-tech, automation vs. employment is emerging as a big theme for the future. The balance may swing back and forth over time, but in the long term I think automation has to win. New wealth will be created, but the question is how broadly it will be shared. The question is not just an economic one – it depends on the kind of social and political systems people will live under in various places. This might be why the field of economics was originally called “political economy”. So I’m putting this in the positive column but giving it no points because the jury is out. (+0)
  • Google is working on nanobots that can swim around in your blood and give an early diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. (+1)
  • Economic slowing is probably the main reason why oil prices are way down. Increased supply capacity from the U.S. also probably plays a role, although there are dissenting voices how long that is going to last. I find it hard to say whether cheaper oil is good or bad. I tend to think it is just meaningless noise on the longer time scale, but you won’t hear me complain if it brings down the price of transportation and groceries for a year or two. (+0)
  • Millennials aren’t buying cars in large numbers. I don’t believe for a second that this means they are less materialistic than past generations, but I think a shift in consumption from cars to almost anything else is a net gain for sustainability. (+2)
  • I discovered the FRAGSTATS package for comprehensive spatial analysis of ecosystems and habitats. This gives us quantitative tools to design green webs that work well for both people and wildlife. Bringing land back into our economic framework in an explicit way might also help. (+1)
  • “Perennial polyculture” gardens may be able to provide food year round on small urban footprints in temperate climates. (+1)
  • A vision for smart, sustainable infrastructure involves walkable communities, closing water and material loops, and using energy wisely. Pretty much the same points I made in my book, which I don’t actively promote on this site;) (+1)

Hope for the Future Index (end of October 2014): -2

change during November 2014: -6 + 6 = 0

Hope for the Future Index (end of November 2014): -2 + 0 = -2

Scratch

“Scratch” is another programming language supposedly aimed at children.

Scratch Overview from ScratchEd on Vimeo.

If you watch the TED talk in the first link, there is an analogy I like – just because you use technology created by others (web browsing, texting, etc.) doesn’t make you fully literate in that technology. It is akin to being able to read but not able to write.

Michael Graves’s linear cities

I had forgotten about this idea for long, linear cities laid out along transportation corridors.

It’s interesting. I’m a little skeptical for a few reasons. First, I can imagine it being a cold, corporate world. Who would own the buildings and transportation systems? From my little row house I can walk in many different directions and engage in many different activities on little parcels of land owned or controlled by many different entities. Would this linear city be more like living in a mall, where everything is ultimately controlled by one owner and sanitized for my protection? Also, a line is by definition a one-dimensional world – in a linear city it seems to me like I would have only two choices of direction and that sounds boring. Although the prospect of being close to a natural or agricultural landscape is intriguing. A final concern would be the capacity of the transportation system. As the city keeps getting longer indefinitely, it seems like you might come up against a finite transportation capacity and bottlenecks could develop in the system.

I’m also reminded about a couple works of science fiction, both of which are dystopian. Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash is laid out along “linear cities” that are definitely not cold, corporate, sanitary or mall like (or safe). They are more like trashy interstate truck stops. Paul McAuley’s Invisible Country alludes to enormous “ribbon arcologies” where most people live. They don’t have to work because they have slaves, so apparently they spend most of their time tripping on drugs and virtual reality, and don’t really go out much. So the linear city is an interesting idea, but we need to be a little cautious how it unfolds.

10-foot lanes

Here’s an article arguing compellingly for 10-foot lanes on city streets. 12-foot lanes might save time and lives on highways, but on city streets they waste space and kill people.

On city streets, most drivers ignore posted speed limits, and instead drive the speed at which they feel safe. That speed is set by the cues provided by the environment. Are there other cars near me? Is an intersection approaching? Can I see around that corner? Are there trees and buildings near the road? Are there people walking or biking nearby? And: How wide is my lane?

All of these factors matter, and others, too. The simplest one to discuss, and probably the most impactful, is lane width. When lanes are built too wide, many bad things happen. In a sentence: pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don’t fit.

I think we need to move toward safe, multi-modal streets on the Dutch and Danish models worldwide. This will be truly sustainable – safe, healthy, low-energy, low-carbon, and supportive of creative, innovative urban ecosystems where people can come together to solve problems. These are major capital investments with tax dollars, so a cost-effective way to do them is to develop the new standards, adopt them as business as usual, and then upgrade our streets to the new standards as they wear out.

That is a vision, but I see some cheap, easy short-term retrofits that could be done right away without major capital investment. Repainting with narrower lanes (streets need to be painted periodically anyway), and giving the saved space to pedestrians, bicycles, and green infrastructure would be pretty easy. Once streets get repainted, the next incremental step is bollards or other physical protections for pedestrians and cyclists. Some more short-term parking and loading zones would be helpful in a lot of cities – if we had more of those in Philadelphia you wouldn’t have so many people blocking the bike lanes we do have. Another short-term thing that could be done is to turn off stoplights and go back to stop signs on a lot of lower-traffic streets – this should even save a little energy and money. Stop signs are much safer for pedestrians, because all the vehicles have to stop or at least almost stop. You don’t have people gunning the engine on a yellow light to clear the intersection or make a quick turn – that is when pedestrians and cyclists die. Finally, on higher-traffic streets, light signals can be reprogrammed so that pedestrians are not in conflict with cars. Left turns on green just absolutely have to go away. I think right turns on green can be made a lot safer by  small curb extension requiring a sharper turn, but we should think seriously about whether we want any turns on green. Let’s think about the pedestrian scramble model, where all traffic stops and pedestrians can cross diagonally. Cyclists could be allowed to treat this like a stop sign. Then, add turn arrows for all turns and it’s pretty safe for everyone.